About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
every experience in california. we voted for higher taxes in order to fund better education. and i think people are recognizing that fiscal sustainability has a newman rart and a deno, ma'minator. the numerator is about sustaining growth and paying debts. i think it's known that we need to establish both. it's not going to be a big jump, and i think richard is correct in reminding us this is a long haul, and let's focus on both the numerator and the denominator. >> the point steven has just made, and i will point out as well, you cannot have it both ways. you cannot remind us on the one hand that there is a $1.6 trillion deficit and on the other hand say we won't have tax raised. >> this is america. we've been doing that for 25 years. >> that's exactly the problem. you're going into the negotiations saying, ah, we've got to do something about it, but we won't raise tax rates. you can't do it. >> can i make a big point here, think about the cuts in tax and increases which did make t right? you look at the fiscal cliff. that's 7 trillion in ten years with no thought, no nuance, no kind of
risk of everybody in the world? >> so i would extrapolate from our own experience here in california. we voted for higher taxes in order to fund better education. i think people are recognizing that fiscal sustainability has a num rater and a denominator. the denominator is about growth, making sure can you grow living stands ardz and pay off debt. i think the realization is coming in that we need to optimize both and i think that our politicians will slowly get that. it's not going to be a big jump. i think richard quest is correct in reminding us that this is a long haul. let's focus both on the num rater and the denominator. >> the point, stephen, has just made and mohamme points out as well, you cannot have it both ways. >> right. >> you cannot remind us on the one hand that there's a $1.8 trillion deficit. but then immediately say we won't have tax revenues raised. you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. >> this is america! we've been doing that for 25 years! >> i know! >> that's exactly the problem. you know, going into the negotiations saying ahh! we have to do something ab
calls out of the blue of people who are stranded in places like california. they're asking, how can i get my vote in, i can't get back home? we give them the procedure and it seems to be working really well. there are hundreds of people who have been voting every day. we're open 8:30 to 4:30 today and tomorrow for anybody who can go to the county clerk and vote right there. >> is there an explanation as to how many people you think will not be able to vote who will not take advantage or not be able to take advantage of these new measures as a result of the storm? >> no, no one has figured out exactly how many. everybody is out there trying to get as many polling places open as possible, and the ones that we can't get open, we're moving them to another location and making sure there are signs, and people are trying to notify them through reverse 911. wherever we can, we're notifying as many people as possible where their new polling location is if we have to shut theirs down. >> so it sounds like you're pretty optimistic that all of those who were intending to vote will have the opport
in california, making those products. it wouldn't raise the cost of an iphone more than a couple of bucks. but the returns for our economy would be fabulous. >> here's the deal, scott. if those benefits are all exist as you lay them out, the innovation and manufacturing need to be geographically linked in order to fully be open timized, won't the companies realize that benefit? why do we need government to provide special benefits to realize that goal? if it's there, it will be self evident and the company will choose that path. >> well, am, that's a good quechlt here's the reason. manufacturing is in the tradable sector. we have global competition. hospitals don't. retailers don't. other sectors of the economy don't necessary sli that. manufacturers do. and every other country out there has incentives to attract manufacturing. whether it's the low road like china or the high road like germany f we're not in that game, we're going to be sitting on the sidelines and lose jobs. we've seen. that our manufacturing goods, trade deficit has gone up. >> that might be true that some play dirty, w
, but they could be employing thousands of engineers in california making those products. it wouldn't raise the cost of an iphone more than a couple of bucks, but the returns for our economy would be fabulous. it would be great. >> here's the deal, scott. here's why i disagree with you, and that's if this those benefits all exist as you laid them out, the innovation to manufacturing need to be geographically linked in order to be fully op pi timized, won'e country itself figure that out? why do they need the government to step in and realize those goals? if it's there, it will be self-evident and the company will choose that path. >> manufacturing is in a tradeable sector. we have global competition. other sectors of the economy don't necessarily have that. manufacturers do, and every other country out there has incentives to attract manufacturing, whether it's the low road like china or the high road like germany. if we're not in that game, we're going to be sitting on the sidelines. we're going to lose jobs and we've seen that. our manufacturing goods trade deficit has gone up. >> that mi
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)